General : ESPN may lose EPL Football(Update)

[andy_m]

Sky may offer more than just lots of channels, but don't kid yourselves that this isn't a major selling point for a lot of people. Sky themselves confirm this. Sure anytime+ and go are important, but as of last year less than 40% of their customers had upgraded to hd and only 15% were using Sky Go. I'd just like to reaffirm the point I was making which is you have to do what's best for you. What I have to consider, being in the majority of people who aren't especially bothered by hd and don't want to watch TV on the go, as well as being unable to get decent broadband speeds from anyone other than Virgin (negating the cheap telephone point) is that really the only thing I would be extra channels. And I don't want them.

[colin25]

My point is..I have never heard of anyone saying...wow..I got sky because of all the channels. That may have happened when sky first came out..but mainly because extra channels was rare.

Customers choose now because of other selling points..quantity of channel isn't it..usually it is quality of choice...I have a selection of channels I view..the rest just sit there waiting

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by andy_m

Sky may offer more than just lots of channels, but don't kid yourselves that this isn't a major selling point for a lot of people. Sky themselves confirm this. Sure anytime+ and go are important, but as of last year less than 40% of their customers had upgraded to hd and only 15% were using Sky Go. I'd just like to reaffirm the point I was making which is you have to do what's best for you. What I have to consider, being in the majority of people who aren't especially bothered by hd and don't want to watch TV on the go, as well as being unable to get decent broadband speeds from anyone other than Virgin (negating the cheap telephone point) is that really the only thing I would be extra channels. And I don't want them.

For you that is the case but Sky have more tripple pay customers(taking BB/TVPHONE) than Virginmedia does. An I can tell you right now a 16Mb ADSL line compare's surprisingly well agains't a 100Mb Virginmedia line.

Although I don't download much but we do have in the evening a lot of usage on our line EG, Skyanytime+, xboxlive, general browsing,Sky go, phones connected.

You would be surprised how much internet speed you DON'T need. Although I will have Sky's 80Mb download and 20Mb upload very soon

[andy_m]

Sky themselves make a point of saying that, as standard, they offer 40 of their own channels as well as the UK's largest selection of free to air channels. Those are the very first two things they say before they mention anything else. Like I say, it really is important to some people. Sky recognise this and use it as the main basis for their marketing.

---------- Post added at 17:03 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

A 16 mb line might compare well, but as stated I can't get anywhere near that.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Telly Bear

For you that is the case but Sky have more tripple pay customers(taking BB/TVPHONE) than Virginmedia does. An I can tell you right now a 16Mb ADSL line compare's surprisingly well agains't a 100Mb Virginmedia line.

16Mb ADSL line you really must be joking as several of my family have Skys broadband and let me tell you when l was there they were lucky if they got 1Mb each day so my advice is don't be decieved by Skys broadband because in my experience its non league compared to Virgins Premier league fiber optic broadband.

---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:15 ----------

A 16 mb line might compare well, but as stated I can't get anywhere near that.

Most people cannot get nowhere near those speeds and any who can are in the minority thats for sure on Sky.

[colin25]

Originally Posted by denphone

16Mb ADSL line you really must be joking as several of my family have Skys broadband and let me tell you when l was there they were lucky if they got 1Mb each day so my advice is don't be decieved by Skys broadband because in my experience its non league compared to Virgins Premier league fiber optic broadband.

Disagree

i have had Virgins, 10, 30, 50

I have had Skys 16 (I get 11)

Sky's is better, hands down

I couldn't play online games on Virgins..I can on Sky

But if you are a big downloader...then maybe Virgin is best....I can't compare that, as I don't download lots

[denphone]

Originally Posted by colin25

Disagree

i have had Virgins, 10, 30, 50

I have had Skys 16 (I get 11)

Sky's is better, hands down

I couldn't play online games on Virgins..I can on Sky

But if you are a big downloader...then maybe Virgin is best....I can't compare that, as I don't download lots

Its always nice to read what the wise old sage Colin says on the subject but when it comes to broadband there simply is no contest but its always nice to know the old boys club is as vocal as ever on the subject.

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by denphone

16Mb ADSL line you really must be joking as several of my family have Skys broadband and let me tell you when l was there they were lucky if they got 1Mb each day so my advice is don't be decieved by Skys broadband because in my experience its non league compared to Virgins Premier league fiber optic broadband.

---------- Post added at 17:21 ---------- Previous post was at 17:15 ----------



Most people cannot get nowhere near those speeds and any who can are in the minority thats for sure on Sky.

On the VM forums their are people on 100Mb VM lines getting under 15Mb and have been for over 4 months.

My Sky stats, my actual achieved speed is more like dead on 16Mb

ADSL Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 16902 kbps 1192 kbps

I live in a VM area I can get 100Mb but I choose Sky, if I could not get Sky I would go BT-Vision or freeview/sat but NEVER back to Virginmedia.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Telly Bear

On the VM forums their are people on 100Mb VM lines getting under 15Mb and have been for over 4 months.

My Sky stats, my actual achieved speed is more like dead on 16Mb

ADSL Link Downstream Upstream
Connection Speed 16902 kbps 1192 kbps

That might very well be your Sky stats but its very much in the small minority thats for sure.

[andy_m]

Fair enough. If I could get a decent adsl speed I may never have come to cable. I can't. I really want to reiterate the fact that my point was that everyone has to do what's right for them. I wasn't trying to reignite* an old debate. The only perceived dig at Sky appears to have been my suggestion that they are mainly about lots of channels, it wasn't intended as a dig and I've posted to back up this suggestion again, not to reignite the debate but to back up my original point, which is that it's not for me. I'm in the majority of people not yet sold on hd and TV on the go, but the minority of people who consider Virgin their best option.

Is it right that BT have bought some Premier League rights?

[Telly_]

Originally Posted by denphone

That might very well be your Sky stats but its very much in the small minority thats for sure.

Their are Sky customers getting 80Mb down and 20Mb up completely unmanaged. VM cannot get anywhere near 20Mb upload speeds, Nore could they go completely unmanaged even 100Mb has traffic management.

I also know for a fact my Thinkbroadband ping monitor looks better than your and I have never seen yours. Mine is in the ping monitor thread. I would advise anyone not fall for Virginmedias claimed speeds because in my experience you get less than promised and its useless for online gaming.

Back ontopic........

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Telly Bear

Their are Sky customers getting 80Mb down and 20Mb up completely unmanaged. VM cannot get anywhere near 20Mb upload speeds, Nore could they go completely unmanaged even 100Mb has traffic management.

You are certainly doing your masters bidding TB but like your master its the same old Sky old boys club rhetoric without much proof or substance to back up your extremely biased conclusions.

[colin25]

Originally Posted by denphone

You are certainly doing your masters bidding TB but like your master its the same old Sky old boys club rhetoric without much proof or substance to back up your extremely biased conclusions.

I beg to differ, I've used both products...and can say Virgin is over rated...but it is still the point...that is my view. i do appreciate that you are pro-virgin, and I have no issue with that. But i am not pro-Sky, I am pro-me..best deal, suiting my circumstances is all i am after. If Virgin could improve their gaming, I would choose their broadband.

But I wouldn't choose them for tv, they lack sport in HD (and to be honest, it is only sport that I think is essential for HD, movies etc I can take in standard happily), and of course, Virgin don't have Sky atlantic, and a lot of shows I watch, are on that channel

---------- Post added at 18:12 ---------- Previous post was at 18:11 ----------

Oops, and to keep it on thread, ESPN will lose EPL football, and customers from SKy

This thread is not about VM versus Sky products..

[Chad]

Boy it's going to get real expensive if you are a die hard football fan. If you are a fan of the English Premiership, SPL, European football etc... you'll need SKY Sports, ESPN and the new BT channel. That's not to mention Premier Sports if that ever launches on Virgin.

It's actually going to be cheaper to buy a season ticket for the majority of Scottish and Enlgish clubs than what it will be to watch football on TV. A season ticket for my local club, Falkirk, is only £225.00. You can get a season ticket for most English Championship clubs from between £350.00 to £550.00

Maybe people should start thinking about going back to football and putting their money back into their local clubs, and enjoying a day out at the game, rather than lining the pockets of SKY, ESPN and BT.